Thank you. I have just a couple more points to make.
The standard of proof required for action under Bill C-6 is too restrictive, providing little beyond what the common law provides through the right to sue, and contradicting the preamble of the bill that calls for the application of the precautionary principle. I have quoted the preamble—which I'm sure you're well aware of—and contrasted that to the test of danger to human health and safety to demonstrate the point.
Any hazard without transparency or disclosure is unreasonable. At a minimum, the standards must protect children from chemical assault through the products to which they are exposed. Proof of harm or likelihood of harm is no protection for children. The story of lead here again is cautionary.